North York Moors National Park Authority Planning Committee

16 February 2017

Tree Preservation Order 2016/2 – Trees on land adjacent to The Old Post Office, Coxwold

1. Purpose of the Report

1.1 To seek Members’ approval to confirm Tree Preservation Order 2016/2.

2. Background

2.1 A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) was made on the 19 August 2016 relating to trees on land adjacent to The Old Post Office, Coxwold. This order took provisional effect from the date it was made and requires to be confirmed within 6 months of this date. The protected trees are specified by reference to a group and therefore the Authority can take any of the following three actions;

- Not confirm;
- Confirm as served;
- Confirm with modifications to specify individual or groups of trees.

A plan showing the location and extent of the area is at Appendix 1.

2.2 The site is a garden area within the curtilage of the Old Post Office, to the east of the property and fronting the main street. The trees are readily viewed on passing the site and the roadside trees are prominent when approaching the site from the west along the village street.

2.3 The initial consideration of a TPO was in response to information received from a member of the public who was concerned that trees were about to be imminently removed. The site was also subject to an ongoing planning application (NYM/2016/0576/FL) that could have had a potential impact on the trees.

2.4 An external arboricultural consultant carried out a site assessment for the Authority on the 18 August 2016 with a recommendation that a provisional TPO be served to prevent trees being removed until the planning application is considered. The TPO was authorised by Andy Wilson CEO on the 19 August 2016.

3. Site Details

3.1 The group contains 16 trees which are plotted on the plan and listed in the schedule at Appendix 2. The species are a mix of conifer and broadleaves typical of garden planting with the exception of the ash and sycamore which have most likely established through natural regeneration. Many of the trees have been planted in close proximity to each other and this is reflected in the unbalanced crowns of a number. 3.2 The arboricultural consultant contracted by the Authority reported that the overall amenity value of the trees as a group was sufficient to consider a TPO. The Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) was followed and a survey data sheet completed. The score was 15 where a score of 12 to 15 indicates a TPO is defensible and a score of 16 or more definitely merits a TPO. The consultant also reported that not all the trees on the site were likely to be appropriate for a TPO and that the provisional order may need to be modified at confirmation.

4. Objections and Representations

4.1 The public have 28 days to comment on new Orders, which are publicised in accordance with Authority procedures and the TPO regulations. Objections and representations must be taken into account by planning authorities before they decide whether or not to confirm an order, or whether or not to modify it upon confirmation.

4.2 There have been three responses to the TPO and these are reproduced at Appendix 3. These are from the landowner, planning applicant and the land owner’s arboricultural consultant. Specific objections relevant to the order are described below along with a summary of officers’ responses.

1. The landowner states he had received requests from a member of the parish council to prune the vegetation that was causing issue to the use of the telephone box. He had also received a letter from a local business whose vehicles were impeded by overhanging vegetation. In response to these concerns he had informed his tenant that he was about to trim the shrubs and saplings to address the issues. This was just prior to the contact made to the Authority concerning tree removal. It is not possible for officers to determine the reason the concern was raised and therefore officers acted correctly on the available evidence. The Woodland Officer has explained the circumstances to the landowner and has informed him that he can still carry out works to trees to maintain clearances over the highway and footpath as exemptions under the TPO regulations.

2. Subsequent to the TPO being served the landowner employed A Whitehead Associates Limited to carry out a tree survey and make comments in respect of the TPO. In respect of the TPO Mr Whitehead challenges the TEMPO score produced by the Authority. Mr Whitehead has carried out the same process on a number of trees on the site and his findings are that only the beech tree individually merits a score appropriate for a TPO. The Woodland Officer does not dispute the scores provided and therefore has not responded.

3. Mr Whitehead has also provided the tree survey required for the planning application and made some recommendations in respect of the planning application. He has acknowledged the value of the trees at the east and west of the frontage and has provided a revised plan showing how these trees could be successfully retained within the development. The Woodland Officer has submitted comments in respect of the planning application that the revised details would be acceptable in respect of the impact on trees.

4. **Comment**

5.1 The main grounds for objection to the TPO are the suitability of the trees. Mr Whitehead is correct in his assertion that a number of the trees would not score sufficient points under the TEMPO individually. This is principally due to the fact that many of the trees have been planted quite close together and not thinned out leading to unbalanced crowns and other dysfunctions. However from an amenity point of view this aspect does not entirely detract from the contribution they make at the edge of the village at this time. The TEMPO score is only provided as an aid to decision making and it is the Authority's responsibility to make its own assessment of amenity value.

5.2 **Appendix 4** provides images of the site from both the east and west. There is a wooded backdrop to the area and there clearly is an issue with trees encroaching over the road and path. It also shows how close some trees are to each other. Particularly for the conifers, thinning out the trees at this late stage will significantly reduce the amenity value. In the medium to long term felling and replanting of these would likely be required. It should be made clear that many of the trees here cannot be retained long term and therefore the effect of the TPO would only be to ensure that replanting could be conditioned and the amenity value of these trees retained.

5.3 The expediency test was met at the time of serving the provisional TPO by the fact that a planning application to develop the site was under consideration and also an unconfirmed report that tree work was planned. Subsequently the planning application was revised to accommodate acceptable tree retention, which could have been enforced by a planning condition. The application was later refused on grounds unrelated to trees. The current level of threat is lower, but planning officers advise that this site could be subject to an appeal or future development proposals. The area falls outside the village Conservation Area, and therefore without a TPO the trees could be legally removed. The land owner has stated in his letter that he had only intended to “trim the shrubs and saplings and tidy the place up”.

5.4 Officers are recommending that the TPO is confirmed with modifications to restrict trees protected to the two groups of trees G1 and G2 that contribute the most to the amenity of the location and shown on the modified plan at **Appendix 5**. The excluded trees 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 are not on balance considered to provide sufficient benefit and were not considered worthy of protection in relation to the recent planning application. The images at **Appendix 4** illustrate the visibility of the groups. G1, the group nearest the building contains no trees suitable for long term retention and it would be our expectation that they would require replacement in the future. G2 the group to the east contains several trees that can be retained in the long term, but it would again be our expectation that some trees will justify removal and their replacement assessed at the time.

6. **Financial and Staffing Implications**

6.1 None.

7. **Contribution to National Park Management Plan**

7.1 The relevant Management Plan policies are:

- E40. Individual and groups of trees that are of amenity and conservation value will be protected and new tree planting will be encouraged, where appropriate.

8. **Legal Implications**

8.1 An authority cannot confirm an Order unless they have first considered any duly made objections or other representations.

8.2 The legislation provides no right of appeal to the Secretary of State against an authority either making or confirming an Order.

8.3 The validity of an Order cannot be challenged in any legal proceedings except by way of application to the High Court on a point of law.

9. **Recommendation**

9.1 That Tree Preservation Order 2016/2 - Trees on land adjacent to The Old Post Office, Coxwold is confirmed with modification to reduce the number of trees protected to the two groups G1 and G2 as shown on the modified plan at Appendix 5.

Contact Officers

David Renwick\
Director of Conservation

Mark Antcliff\
Woodland Officer

01439 772700

**Background papers to this Report**\
None. A. Wilson Chief Executive (National Park Officer) The Old Vicarage Bondgate Helmsley York YO62 5BP

North York Moors National Park Authority

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER. No. 2016/2

Chief Executive (National Park Officer) | Tree | Species | |------|-----------------| | 1 | Pear | | 2 | Lawson Cypress | | 3 | Lawson’s Cypress| | 4 | Golden Cypress | | 5 | Apple | | 6 | Beech | | 7 | Cherry | | 8 | Cherry | | 9 | Lawson Cypress | | 10 | Sycamore | | 11 | Lawson Cypress | | 12 | Lawson Cypress | | 13 | Ash | | 14 | Juniper | | 15 | Lawson Cypress | | 16 | Lawson Cypress | 6th September 2016

North York Moors National Park Authority The Old Vicarage Bondgate Helmsley York YO62 5BP

Dear Sir/Madam

Tree Preservation Order 2016/2

Land adjacent to The Old Post Office, Coxwold

I am writing to you to explain the situation regarding the land adjacent to The Old Post Office, Coxwold.

I have received a Notice from the National Park that they have put a tree preservation order on all the shrubs and trees in the garden which I feel very embarrassed about. This would not have happened if Mr Robson had not kindly offered me the plot to build myself and partner and two children a house on. I was born and brought up in Coxwold, with my parents and grandparents and it is beneficial to my job, working with livestock, that I live in the Coxwold area. I have worked for the Robson family since leaving school and I understand from my mother that Mr Robson has owned the property, firstly for Mr Robson’s parents to live in and latterly the property has been let to professional people who could afford to pay a gardener to keep the garden in good shape. Unfortunately, in the last few years the garden has been neglected, the shrubs and trees have not been pruned resulting in the problem there is today. If I had not applied for planning permission this issue would not have come to light. I hope I have made you fully aware of the situation as I feel very responsible for and I beg you to please remove this TPO.

As you may not know Mr Robson is a man of his word and he will not do anything to this garden that is not in the gardens best interest and that of the residents of Coxwold village.

Yours faithfully

N J Bulmer Mr M Antcliff\
North York Moors National Park Authority\
The Old Vicarage\
Bondgate\
Helmsley, YO62 5BP

New Manor Farm\
Carlton Husthwaite\
Thirsk\
YO7 2BP

12th September 2016

Dear Mr Antcliff

Whatever happened to common sense?

As you aware a TPO order has been placed on my property, The Old Post Office, Coxwold and anybody with an outside view would wonder why. A planning application has been made by one of my employees to build a house for him and his young family in the village where he was born and lived with his parents. I have agreed to sell him the land which would enable him to live in an area he knows and look after my livestock in the Coxwold area.

During the Spring of 2016 Mrs J Richardson of Coxwold, who is a member of the Parish Council contacted my wife and asked if some of the large saplings which were hanging over the public telephone box in the village, which is in use, could be removed as they were obstructing the doorway. I said at the time I would get someone to do it but simply forgot until several weeks later I received a letter from Ian Mosey Ltd stating that the overgrown saplings were damaging the sides of his lorries.

I have owned this property since the mid 1980’s, I have lived in it myself and then latterly my parents. During this time we paid somebody to keep the vegetation, bushes and shrubs tidy, in shape and not obstructing the telephone box, highway or blocking light to the house. Since my parents were no longer able to live there we have let the property to professional people who have also paid someone to maintain the grounds. Although all tenants are responsible for keeping the garden tidy this has not always been done allowing the vegetation, bushes and shrubs to get completely overgrown. After receiving the letter from Ian Mosey Ltd. it reminded me about Mrs Richardson’s concern, so my wife and I decided to visit the property and we met the current tenants on site, this was not by arrangement. I explained to them about the concerns with the garden and arranged that we would go, hopefully on 20th August 2016 to trim the shrubs and saplings and tidy the place up. The current tenant rang me the next day, was very offhand about the matter and 2 days later the TPO was placed on the property. As the tenants, my wife and myself were the only people who knew of my intentions this made me very suspicious as to who notified the National Park.

I think it is ridiculous that this TPO has been placed on my property which upon inspection is obviously in desperate need of cutting back of overgrown vegetation in the interest and safety of the villagers using the footpath and telephone box and people using the public highway. I feel common sense should prevail and I ask that this matter is given considerable thought.

I feel so disappointed and let down that I would consider contacting the local press so that the people of the village can voice their opinion.

Please find enclosed letter from Ian Mosey Ltd.

Yours sincerely

[Signature] Robson Tractors New Manor Farm Carlton Husthwaite Thirsk YO7 2BP

27th July 2016

Dear Mr Robson

We have been experiencing some issues where some of our Livestock vehicles have been damaged by trees overhanging the road on the approach to Coxwold village, between the old railway bridge and the telephone booth. Our drivers are having to move towards the middle of the road in order to avoid the branches which is obviously a safety concern when there are vehicles approaching from the opposite direction.

Having made some enquiries regarding the ownership of the trees and the property they are on, I believe they may belong to you. It would be much appreciated if you could address those branches that are overhanging the road in order to prevent any further damage to our vehicles.

Should you wish to discuss the matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely

Tracy Robinson Group Transport Manager Our ref: 6382

Mr and Mrs T Robson New Manor Farm Carlton Hustwaite Thirsk YO7 2BP

14 September 2016

Dear Mr and Mrs Robson

Re: The Old Post Office, Coxwold

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Thank you for your instructions to survey the trees in the garden of The Old Post Office in relation to the proposed development and, following on from that, to respond to the proposal that the garden trees should be made the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

1.2 I surveyed the garden trees on 13 September 2016 and enclose a tree survey carried out to BS 5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction, a Tree Survey Plan showing the sizes of the trees and their species, a Tree Survey Plan to BS5837 showing the trees’ retention categories and their tree root protection areas, and two schemes, the first showing the minimum level of felling required and the second showing an intermediate level of tree removal.

1.3 Currently, you have a planning application with the National Park Authority to build a house in the garden of The Old Post Office. The scheme proposes removing the Lawson cypress group T26-T30, the Lawson cypresses T18 and T25 and the mixed group T19-T24.

1.4 The period of objection to the TPO is in advance of the consideration of the planning application by the National Park Authority. Therefore it is necessary to consider the trees’ worthiness for a Tree Preservation Order before assessing the development’s possible impact on the site trees.

1.5 The National Park Authority has reviewed the site trees using the TEMPO Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO). The TEMPO system was written by an arboricultural consultant, Julian Forbes-Laird, and is a stripped down version of the 'Visual Amenity Valuation of Trees and Woodlands by D R Helliwell (Arboricultural Association 2003), known as the Helliwell System. I attach a copy of the TEMPO system guidance notes.

1.6 It should be noted that the TEMPO system achieves certain goals in that it is quick and easy to use and responds to the duty to apply a test as compared to simply giving an opinion on whether a tree merits a TPO. The score banding within the TEMPO system is, however, Mr Forbes-Laird's opinion and has not, to my knowledge, been subjected to peer review.

1.7 I have appended the full evaluation of two trees according to the Helliwell system. It is not necessary to argue over every tree at the front of the site. The trees at the front of the site constitute two groups of Lawson cypresses with other trees these being: group T26-T30, close to the eastern front corner of The Old Post Office, and group T19-T24, in the eastern corner of the roadside boundary. There is also a pair of individual cypresses that have close crowns and could also be described as a group, T18 and T25 in the middle of the roadside boundary.

1.8 For the purposes of evaluation of group T26-T30 and the pair of trees T18 and T25, I have taken Lawson cypress T18, because it is the larger specimen of the pair, and Lawson cypress T30 from the group close to the Old Post Office as it is the best formed and tallest tree from that group.

1.9 Mr Clayton (JC), on behalf of the National Park Authority, has scored all the trees under one TEMPO form. Therefore I have taken his scoring and compared it with my scoring for these two trees.

2.0 Golden Lawson cypress T18

a) Condition – good (JC). Score 5

AW

2.1 In order to be scored 'good', the trees must be 'generally free of defects, showing good health and likely to reach normal longevity and size for species, or they may already have done so' (TEMPO guidance notes, p. 2). T18 and T25 are close together. Whether they will achieve their full lifespan is questionable because they will become more distorted with time and this species is susceptible to storm and snow failure.

2.2 The guidance notes also state: 'For trees in good or poor condition that have poor form deduct one point' (p. 2). This squat cypress could not be described as being of good form. It is a poor specimen of its species.

2.3 Therefore the score for T18 should be 4.

b) Retention span in years – 20-40 (JC). Score 2

AW 2.4 Agreed.

c) Relative public visibility – large trees or medium trees clearly visible to the public (JC). Score 4

AW 2.5 Please note that the TEMPO guidance notes (p. 4) advise:

I have not attempted to be too prescriptive here, as TEMPO is supposed to function as a guide and not as a substitute for the surveyor’s judgement. However, I have found that reference to the square metre crown size guide within the Helliwell System can be helpful in reaching a decision.

2.6 Using the Helliwell system, the tree would be described as ‘small’; however the tree is clearly visible from the road. Therefore I have compromised between the scores of 2 and 4 because 4 is for ‘large trees clearly visible to the public’ and, though 2 is for ‘small to medium/large trees’, this is qualified with ‘visible only with difficulty’.

2.7 Therefore the score for T18 should be 3.

d) Other factors – the tree does not have any additional factors (JC). Score 1

AW 2.8 The tree is of poor form and how suitable it is for the location is a matter of debate. Please see my notes for this tree in my assessment of it under the Helliwell system.

2.9 Therefore a fair score for T18 would be 0 which would accommodate the quantum jump to -1 for the debate over suitability.

2.10 Overall score for Part 1 JC 12, AW 9

2.11 Please note that the expediency factor is an ambiguous factor. The legislation makes no allowance for enhancing the suitability of a tree for a TPO due to the risk of its being removed. However, guidance from The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to Local Planning Authorities has been, since the 1990s, that LPAs should not serve TPOs unless there are some grounds for considering that the tree/trees are at risk. Consequently, the expediency factor does not enhance the tree’s worthiness for a TPO but it does indicate whether the Tree Officer should recommend the tree/trees for a TPO.

2.12 Therefore it is not agreed that T18 justifies a TPO.

3.0 Golden Lawson cypress T30 a) Condition – good (JC). Score 5

AW

3.1 In order to be scored ‘good’, the trees must be ‘generally free of defects, showing good health and likely to reach normal longevity and size for species, or they may already have done so’ (TEMPO guidance notes, p. 2). The condition of T30 is ‘satisfactory’ not ‘good’. It is only 1m from T29 and, if T29 was removed, would be a tree with a very mothly crown.

3.2 The guidance notes also state: ‘For trees in good or fair condition that have poor form deduct one point’ (p. 3). This cypress could not be described as being of good form. It is a poor specimen of its species.

3.3 Therefore a score of 3 for T30 is generous.

b) Retention span in years – 20-40 (JC). Score 2

AW

3.4 Agreed.

c) Relative public visibility – large trees or medium trees clearly visible to the public (JC). Score 4

AW

3.5 Please note that the TEMPO guidance notes (p. 4) advise:

I have not attempted to be too prescriptive here, as TEMPO is supposed to function as a guide and not as a substitute for the surveyor’s judgement. However, I have found that reference to the square metre crown size guide within the Helliwell System can be helpful in reaching a decision.

3.6 Using the Helliwell system, the tree would be described as ‘small’; however the tree is clearly visible from the road. Therefore I have compromised between the scores of 2 and 4 because 4 is for ‘large trees clearly visible to the public’ and though 2 is for ‘small to medium/large trees’ this is qualified with ‘visible only with difficulty’.

3.7 Therefore the score for T30 should be 3.

d) Other factors – the tree does not have any additional factors (JC). Score 1

AW

3.8 The tree is of poor form and how suitable it is for the location is a matter of debate. Please see my notes for this tree in my assessment of it under the Helliwell system. 3.9 Therefore a fair score for T30 would be 0 which would accommodate the quantum jump to -1 for the debate over suitability.

3.10 Overall score for Part 1 JC 12, AW 8

3.11 Please note that the expediency factor is an ambiguous factor. The legislation makes no allowance for enhancing the suitability of a tree for a TPO due to the risk of its being removed. However, guidance from The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to Local Planning Authorities has been since the 1990s that LPAs should not serve TPOs unless there is some grounds for considering that the tree/trees are at risk. Consequently, the expediency factor does not enhance the tree’s worthiness for a TPO but it does indicate whether the Tree Officer should recommend the tree/trees for a TPO.

3.12 Therefore it is not agreed that T30 justifies a TPO.

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 In my opinion, neither T18 nor T30 achieves the score of 10 in Part 1 of the TEMPO assessment which means that, under the method, the expediency score cannot be added. Therefore neither tree justifies a TPO. Street views

View from east

View from west – showing canopy outline of groups A. Wilson Chief Executive (National Park Officer) The Old Vicarage Bondgate Helmsley York YO62 5BP

North York Moors National Park Authority

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER. No. 2016/2

Chief Executive (National Park Officer)